Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ATHENA.MIT.EDU!ambar
From: ambar@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jean Marie Diaz)
Newsgroups: comp.laser-printers
Subject: Re: Why I think I dislike PostScript
Message-ID: <8707301853.AA03109@brillig.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 28-Jul-87 19:45:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: brillig.8707301853.AA03109
Posted: Tue Jul 28 19:45:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 10:25:59 EDT
References: <8707282014.AA19351@brillig.umd.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ambar@athena.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz)
Distribution: world
Organization: Madhouse International Technologies
Lines: 18
Approved: laser-lovers@brillig.umd.edu
Summary: all postscript printers are not created equal


In article <8707282014.AA19351@brillig.umd.edu> phil@RICE.EDU (William LeFebvre) writes:

>5 pages per minute?  I get better performance out of our Imagen 2308:
>8 pages per minute and it isn't a PostScript engine.  From this I
>assert the following claim:  PostScript engines are very slow.  Perhaps
>someday in the distant future they might be running an acceptable
>speed---when we start using 68030 processors in them and when we start
>putting them on Ethernets (so that transmitting the very verbose
>document description won't slow us down as much).

Our LPS-40 will crank out 40 pages per minutes, after a short pause (~30
seconds) to download the TeX fonts.  That sounds sufficiently practical
to me...  Sure, an LPS-40 isn't cheap (yet), but it isn't the distant
future, either, it's right here and now...
				AMBAR
ARPA: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
UUCP:(get smail!): {mit-eddie,husc6,garp,bu-cs}!bloom-beacon!ambar